Page 1255 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 3 April 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
of them, but we will certainly look at them. There are reasons why surcharges are applied, and they may relate to the type of payment a customer may use. Some surcharges would be applied by banks or financial institutions to particular payment types. We would also have to look at appropriate safeguards to ensure that, for example, there are no extreme responses where people decide to make very small daily payments that would incur a very significant administrative fee to process.
In this instance we must recognise the need to balance the financial costs of particular transactions but at the same time acknowledge that surcharges that are unnecessary and do not meet administrative costs should be looked at. We are very happy to do that as part of this work. I foreshadow that in response to the amendment that is to be proposed, but I will not give a blanket commitment on the run this morning without looking at each individual circumstance and taking advice on the administrative and financial transaction costs associated with more frequent surcharge payments.
The amendment as it is currently written would remove them all. I am not signing up to that without looking at the detail of each individual one. That is appropriate to do as part of our response to Ms Cody’s motion, and that is exactly what we will do. I signal that now. That is what we were intending to do in the context of Ms Cody’s motion today.
I thank Ms Cody for raising this issue and I thank members for their largely constructive contributions to the debate today. There appears to be a degree of unanimity around the chamber for this work to occur. We will do so. We have already done a significant amount, going back through this decade and previously, including concession reviews in the last few years and the targeted assistance strategy in 2012-13. We will continue our work in these areas. As technologies and payment plans and transaction methods evolve over time and as more things move online and costs reduce there will be more opportunity for work in this area. We look forward to undertaking that work in the weeks and months ahead.
MR WALL (Brindabella) (11.17): I begin by moving the amendment to Ms Cody’s motion that has been circulated in my name:
Add new paragraph (2)(d): “remove any surcharge applied to payments made on an incremental basis.”.
My amendment seeks to add some certainty around the payment terms that might be offered for smaller incremental payments. All too often we see the opportunity to pay fortnightly, monthly, quarterly or half yearly given as an option but it often attracts a surcharge. I note the Chief Minister’s comments before my speech that they are not all government controlled, but there should be a very clear expression of intent by this chamber that any component of an increase to those payments put on by government should be removed. In many instances it disadvantages those who can least afford it.
To give members a very clear example, many of us, on a yearly basis, get our registration renewal. To pick a random insurer’s options to give members some clear evidence of how this works, if you pay the registration upfront annually the cost is $1,158.70. To pay it six-monthly is $600.70, so that is $42.70 a year dearer than
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video